Linux vs Windows Performance

[MrDevanWright]

Obviously, everyone has their own opinions on what OS is better, but it's not about that. I'd like to see a performance based battle between the OS choices (Cinebench, AIDA, gaming, etc).

Windows 10 vs Windows 7 vs the top three choices of Linux (ie: Mint, Debian, Ubuntu).

[LienusLateTips]

So.....

what

[Skiiwee29]

Honestly, this may be a better conversation over on the level1tech forums as they have a much larger linux community who can really tell you the differences etc. 

[MrDevanWright]

2 minutes ago, legacy99 said:

Honestly, this may be a better conversation over on the level1tech forums as they have a much larger linux community who can really tell you the differences etc. 

I'm not really asking about the differences or what everyone thinks is the better system, though. I am suggesting a video showing any performance based benefits with using one of the various OS options.

[Max Caulfield]

Windows 7 should perform better among Windows OSes in terms of performance.

In regards to Linux, Cinebench is only available for Mac and Windows, so performance measurement will severely impact if using an alternative method to get Cinebench (i.e. WINE). 

 

AIDA is more of a stress test than performance test.

 

Gaming wise, most devs will optimize for Windows and Mac first, then Windows. So performance is better on Windows, though if games are supported well, Linux does see some performance increase https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-linux-pascal&num=4

 

 

[Skiiwee29]

Just now, MrDevanWright said:

I'm not really asking about the differences or what everyone thinks is the better system, though. I am suggesting a video showing any performance based benefits with using one of the various OS options.

if you were doing a video suggestion, forgive me, but I didnt get that feeling reading the OP. 

[Skiiwee29]

Just now, legacy99 said:

if you were doing a video suggestion, forgive me, but I didnt get that feeling reading the OP. 

 

Just now, Max Caulfield said:

Windows 7 should perform better among Windows OSes in terms of performance.

In regards to Linux, Cinebench is only available for Mac and Windows, so performance measurement will severely impact if using an alternative method to get Cinebench (i.e. WINE). 

 

AIDA is more of a stress test than performance test.

 

Gaming wise, most devs will optimize for Windows and Mac first, then Windows. So performance is better on Windows, though if games are supported well, Linux does see some performance increase https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=windows-linux-pascal&num=4

 

 

That said,

 

I still feel that would be more something that Wendell would cover since he does a lot of testing with both Windows and Linux on his machines. 

[GoodBytes]

4 hours ago, MrDevanWright said:

Obviously, everyone has their own opinions on what OS is better, but it's not about that. I'd like to see a performance based battle between the OS choices (Cinebench, AIDA, gaming, etc).

Windows 10 vs Windows 7 vs the top three choices of Linux (ie: Mint, Debian, Ubuntu).

They are plenty of sites that covered the performance between version of Windows. The end results:

• Every new version of Windows are slower than the last.
• Every version of Windows have the same performance within margin of error (I know I just contracted myself above, but it is the reality of things, I'll explain bellow why that is the case)
• Windows doesn't overclock your PC.. sorry. If your PC sucks, then it sucks.

To explain the first 2 points contradiction. In short: New version of Windows -> Changes on the backend layers and/or driver layer -> drivers are not yet optimized. Usually drivers are optimized after a few months later. So if you compare with more mature drivers, then the performance differences are on par (within margin or error). In other words, all these "day 1" benchmarks of a version of Windows being released will indicate that the Windows X is slower than the last. But if you look at sites that waited a few months after, or redone their benchmarks for older version of Windows and ignore the latest version of Windows, the performance will be similar.

 

As for Linux vs Windows. Windows will get you better performance. Windows does a bunch of stuff like detect if a game is in full screen, and cut down layers for maximize performance for the game, and other things. In addition, and mainly the big difference is drivers. On Windows, they are fully optimized and updated often. Manufactures, with exceptions, doesn't put much effort in their Linux drivers for their consumer mass market products, as most of its users are on Windows. Now of course, different story for server targeted hardware. In some cases, there is no Linux based OSs drivers at all for consumer targeted products. Sure, at times Nvidia and AMD releases some Linux drivers. But compared to Windows where at every new game you can expect new drivers with added detection code for a set of new games and optimizes the drivers and hardware to get every drop of performance out of your hardware for the given game. You don't have these kind of updates on Linux.

 

Linux based OSs have their target market. Windows has its own. 2 different worlds.

[LogicalDrm]

Pure consumer testing would be bit harder than you might think. Most software that give out scores target gamers and most gamers are on Windows. I'm not even sure what would be best game to benchmark with and like @GoodBytes said, since GPU driver support on Linux isn't at same level with Windows, just that fact would make more difference than actual OS optimization for hardware.

[noahdvs]

Windows 10 Creators Update vs. Ubuntu 17.04 Linux Radeon Gaming Performance - 26 April 2017

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=win10c-ubuntu-radeon&num=1

 

Windows 10 vs. Ubuntu Linux Gaming Performance With NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060/1080 - 13 February 2017

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pascal-win10-linux&num=1

 

Linux is behind in many games where the Windows version uses DirectX and the game was ported to use OpenGL on Linux, but it's catching up and can match or even slightly surpass Windows in OpenGL. The AMD Linux drivers seem to be progressing the most.

[GoodBytes]

16 minutes ago, CK1968 said:

All windows users would like a better operating system, but will not dare to move to the wonderful world of Linux.

 

 

Well, I think we all agree that a flashing RGB laptop cover is pretty cool. So more points to Windows.

 

The problem is that Linux based OSs or "the wonderful world of Linux" isn't wonderful at all. It is outdated, uninviting, server focused (and IoT focused as you can just ssh your way through), complex for nothing, command line drive experience. And Linux on the PC space will not go anywhere because of this. It never did back in 1998, and still won't today. Chances where given and are given by OEMs, but it fails to sticks so far (again, in the PC space). The biggest problem, I think, is that the people who are working on Linux based OS are just devs. There is no experts, no research, just nothing being done to think about the end user who isn't tech savvy. And on top of things the community itself plays the denial game, instead of highlighting and recognizing problems, and actually put the effort in changing things.

 

The only Linux based OS that I see that actually put effort in this, and genuinely tried is Ubuntu. However, the Linux communicate, instead of praising, and pushing more tweaks and changes to make it better, it put down, highly criticized with old mentalities, and out right calling it "not a real Linux based OS", and pushed asides. (And this is not to mention the never ending distro wars every time one asks for help outside of the distro specific forum...)

 

It has been an ongoing problem. Windows is far from perfect, and yes, it has flaws and issues, but those are recognized, pushed, and eventually improved or fixed with newer version of Windows. So, work is being done. Not sweeped way by denying the issue, and push on how "Linux is perfect, and the user... is just wrong" (hmm.. sounds familiar...)

[noahdvs]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Well, I think we all agree that a flashing RGB laptop cover is pretty cool. So more points to Windows.

 

The problem is that Linux based OSs or "the wonderful world of Linux" isn't wonderful at all. It is outdated

Outdated? How? Sorry, but Windows is the OS that lacks innovation, except for voice assistance. There is MyCroft on Linux, but it's not as good as Cortana.

Quote

, uninviting

Depends on the user. Linux works best for Programmers and people that only use computers for basic things like web browsing, music, movies, spreadsheets and documents. My mother and sister don't have any more trouble on Linux than they do on Windows, except Linux requires less maintenance. There are other groups of people that Linux works fine for, but those are the two main groups, IMO.

Quote

, server focused (and IoT focused as you can just ssh your way through),

True

Quote

complex for nothing, command line drive experience.

When was the last time you used Linux? Which distro you used also matters. You don't have to use the terminal on Linux.

Quote

And Linux on the PC space will not go anywhere because of this. It never did back in 1998, and still won't today. Chances where given and are given by OEMs, but it fails to sticks so far (again, in the PC space). The biggest problem, I think, is that the people who are working on Linux based OS are just devs. There is no experts, no research, just nothing being done to think about the end user who isn't tech savvy. And on top of things the community itself plays the denial game, instead of highlighting and recognizing problems, and actually put the effort in changing things.

The bolded part is simply untrue. While it is true that Linux has a ways to go before it can truly compete with Windows or MacOS, the problems are not being ignored. Some users ignore them, but the people doing the actual work are not ignoring the issue and there has been a lot of progress. Except for ChromeOS and Android, which are not what I think of as true Linux, it is true that Linux hasn't really stuck in 1st world markets for the average consumer. There are successful companies that sell Linux computers (Dell, System76), but they're aimed at developers. It's also very difficult to displace the incumbent. However, there is a market for Linux in developing countries where Windows an MacOS simply aren't fit for the job due to costs and the limitations of the OSs, which is where things like Endless OS come in. Endless OS is designed to be easy to use and for people who live in areas where internet access is too costly or unreliable.

Quote

The only Linux based OS that I see that actually put effort in this, and genuinely tried is Ubuntu. However, the Linux communicate, instead of praising, and pushing more tweaks and changes to make it better, it put down, highly criticized with old mentalities, and out right calling it "not a real Linux based OS", and pushed asides. (And this is not to mention the never ending distro wars every time one asks for help outside of the distro specific forum...)

While there are people that criticize Canonical for their lack of contribution to the rest of Linux (which is fair to a degree), I've never heard anybody that mattered say Ubuntu wasn't a real Linux OS. Just because you saw some elitist Arch Linux users or free software fanatics say it, doesn't mean most people think it.

 

[GoodBytes]

Heh.. exactly my point.

 

25 minutes ago, noahdvs said:

When was the last time you used Linux?

Less than a minute ago to type this reply, and will resume using it after this post is done.

I use it at work, on a daily basis.. 8-9h a day, coding on that OS.

 

25 minutes ago, noahdvs said:

Which distro you used also matters. You don't have to use the terminal on Linux.

CentOS 5, 6.x, 7 and Ubuntu.

 

[noahdvs]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Heh.. exactly my point.

 

Less than a minute ago to type this reply, and will resume using it after this post is done.

I use it at work, on a daily basis.. 8-9h a day, coding on that OS.

 

CentOS 5, 6.x, 7 and Ubuntu.

 

To be more precise, when was the last time you used Linux for the desktop?

 

Linux is definitely not better than Windows for the average gamer and there are usability issues for gaming, but it's usable in general and people are making it better.

[noahdvs]

53 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

@noahdvs, the problem with linux is the lack of coherent development. Dozens of display/audio/interfaces/containers servers/systems being developed at the same time, each of them being combined in different ways in hundreds of different distributions, instead of people getting together and doing something really good for all/most users, like Mac and Windows.

 

Volunteers are not fungible and there are 3 major competing enterprise Linux companies and many companies contribute to Linux in ways that benefit themselves. Unless someone swoops in, successfully claims total ownership of Linux and makes it proprietary, which would likely kill Linux in the process, people aren't going to unify like they would if they all had the same bosses to answer to. On the other hand, when people claim unification is the answer, they are often ignorant of the many valid concerns behind the fragmentation. Not every solution works best for everyone. Not every development team shares the same values. Linux developers are just not all one group, nor can they be. Some groups are more coherent than others.

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 9/30/2017 at 5:12 PM, MrDevanWright said:

Obviously, everyone has their own opinions on what OS is better, but it's not about that. I'd like to see a performance based battle between the OS choices (Cinebench, AIDA, gaming, etc).

Windows 10 vs Windows 7 vs the top three choices of Linux (ie: Mint, Debian, Ubuntu).

As @GoodBytes mentioned earlier, drivers can make or break system performance, especially early in a new OS's life. The problem with some of these applications is that the driver support for Linux isn't quite as good as Windows. Especially with video cards. I'm pretty sure this aspect is the reason why when Phoronix did a comparison, Windows 10 utterly wrecked Ubuntu in most of the gaming benchmarks (that or OpenGL is really terrible). EDIT: It also depends on developer support, but I'll leave it up to driver support as the main culprit.

 

Also an operating system's job is to provide services for apps on-demand. Applications are made under the idea that the application thinks it owns the computer when it really doesn't. So when an application wants something important, like wanting more memory or access to hardware, it has to ask the OS who then takes over to do what it needs to do, then hand control back to the application. And I'm willing to wager between all of the OSes, they have much of their services down pat to minimize any performance impact they may have on their own.

 

So I think it's more about how everyone else wrote the software around the OS that determines the OS's perceived performance.

[riz06]

I use Linux and Unix based variants for professional uses. Although, professional doesn't mean media oriented professional uses. Windows is simply better suited for me from a consumer's perspective, like games, media consumption, social networking, non-technical professional usages etc.

 

I cannot use Windows to run web-servers to their fullest potentials or same for databases or directory services. I don't find windows to be secure, versatile, transparent, efficient enough to for either log management, troubleshooting, resource usages, scripting, hosting various applications etc. Sure for programming Windows does it okay, but then again for simulation or creating test-beds, you need something that will remain close to what are actually used in enterprise level technologies. So, linux or Unix based variants it is.

 

So, in my notebook I have windows, for my workstation, VMs or remote servers I use anything from CentOS, Ubuntu, RedHat, Oracle Linux or Solaris whatsoever. 

 

In conclusion, for more Linux or Unix based systems, it is unrealistic to opine based on relative performances or consumer-oriented use cases.

[Dat Guy]

On 10.10.2017 at 5:26 PM, riz06 said:

I cannot use Windows to run web-servers to their fullest potentials or same for databases or directory services.

 

Yes, you can.

 

On 10.10.2017 at 5:26 PM, riz06 said:

In conclusion, for more Linux or Unix based systems, it is unrealistic to opine based on relative performances or consumer-oriented use cases.

 

I agree.

[riz06]

On 10/13/2017 at 6:40 PM, Dat Guy said:

 

Yes, you can.

 

 

I agree.

 

Dunno about that, can "run" for sure. But the experiences differ quite a bit for different platforms or the product itself. Active Directory is fine but try running Oracle's LDAPs like Internet Directory, Virtual Directory etc on Windows, you won't be happy. My experiences of running something like SQL Server/MySQL on windows was okay, but pick Oracle or DB2 or something like those, I'd stay away from Windows....most buyers/customers will. I'd rarely suggest clients to run or design a solution that will consider Windows Servers.

 

For small-mid scale deployments, windows server or it's products(mostly) would be okay. But for larger scale, you will go for other manufacturers(IBM, Oracle, CA etc) and their respective products or platforms.